What Do You Do With Accused/Known PED Users in Your Game?

[The Game]

To me unless a players gets busted in OOTP for PED use I leave him alone. Bonds is closing in on 754 HR in my game, Clemens just won his 300th. Big Mac hit 629 in my league. Palmiero has 3300 hits. A-Rod is on the cubs and sucks anyway and Ryan Braun has yet to play as I am in 2005. All future HOFers, and since none of them have been busted for PED use in OOTP they will all go into my HOF, although I wish they would just be stripped of all records IRL.
What have you done with the PED users in your game?

[Déjà Bru]

This is a really interesting question. At first I thought you meant fictional players, guys who get suspended by the game randomly (or, as some have asserted, mostly guys who are low in Intelligence). My reaction was, you know, he's right. Why should a guy who has been caught using PED's be given such a light sentence? Should I, as commissioner, give him a much harsher sentence or maybe ban (retire) him for life?

Then I saw that you are talking about real players with such histories. Hmmm. It's my game after all . . .

So, my personal response is, once those guys reached the estimated career numbers that they had before they (ahem, allegedly) began taking PED's, I would find them GUILTY and I would ban (retire) them for life. No HOF for them either.

It's my game, my universe, my morality, my desire for game purity. Really good question, TG.

[RchW]

I have none. The beauty of fictional is the illusion of perfection

[Charlie Hough]

I don't typically play historical games with players from the PED era, but guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa are deleted from the database and not allowed to exist in my saved games.

Past historical players weren't exactly innocent either, and there were many players taking amphetamines and harder drugs, especially from the 1960s onward. But this didn't seem to have much of an impact on statistical records or overall statistical trends in the game.

Generally, offense and defense were fairly stable from the mid-1930's until the PED era, with maybe the exception of the late 60's when pitching started to dominate so much. Once baseball hit 1996 and beyond, it was obvious that some players were using PEDs and that game had become a caricature of itself. And it has never recovered.

Now that MLB is cracking down on PEDS and statistics are no longer resembling video game output, we now have idiotic micromanaging and over-specialization. This ruins the flow of games, is statistically proven to be pointless, and leads to more talented players being taken off the field in favor of playing to matchups and injuries to the point of absurdity.

That's why I stick to the minor league circuits now. If I want to see a real baseball game with the best players on the clubs given a chance to pitch and hit, then I'd rather watch a Class A game than a Major League contest any day.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I don't typically play historical games with players from the PED era, but guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa are deleted from the database and not allowed to exist in my saved games.

Past historical players weren't exactly innocent either, and there were many players taking amphetamines and harder drugs, especially from the 1960s onward. But this didn't seem to have much of an impact on statistical records or overall statistical trends in the game.

Generally, offense and defense were fairly stable from the mid-1930's until the PED era, with maybe the exception of the late 60's when pitching started to dominate so much. Once baseball hit 1996 and beyond, it was obvious that some players were using PEDs and that game had become a caricature of itself. And it has never recovered.

Now that MLB is cracking down on PEDS and statistics are no longer resembling video game output, we now have idiotic micromanaging and over-specialization. This ruins the flow of games, is statistically proven to be pointless, and leads to more talented players being taken off the field in favor of playing to matchups and injuries to the point of absurdity.

That's why I stick to the minor league circuits now. If I want to see a real baseball game with the best players on the clubs given a chance to pitch and hit, then I'd rather watch a Class A game than a Major League contest any day.

Oh it's recovered. I think baseball is in a really good place right now.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Oh it's recovered. I think baseball is in a really good place right now.

It's recovered in attendance, profits, and popularity, but, in my opinion, it hasn't recovered as a game with integrity and with aesthetic and entertainment value in my book. At least not at the major league level. But there are millions of others who obviously disagree, and that's their prerogative. The stupidity and delusion of today's managers ruins the entire experience for me and has wiped out any gains made in cracking down on PEDs and bringing the game back to less suspicious statistical output. So you won't catch me buying tickets to see a game or wasting my time watching more than a few innings per season on TV.

[boshk]

i sign them. because fans love dingers! juice up, suit up, lets win some ball games and entertain the fans spending their hard earned money on us!

[boshk]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

there were many players taking amphetamines

by many, you mean the entire league... including everyones precious cal ripkin jr.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

It's recovered in attendance, profits, and popularity, but, in my opinion, it hasn't recovered as a game with integrity and with aesthetic and entertainment value in my book. At least not at the major league level. But there are millions of others who obviously disagree, and that's their prerogative. The stupidity and delusion of today's managers ruins the entire experience for me and has wiped out any gains made in cracking down on PEDs and bringing the game back to less suspicious statistical output. So you won't catch me buying tickets to see a game or wasting my time watching more than a few innings per season on TV.

What are todays managers doing that bugs you so much?

[David Watts]

Oh and to the OP's question. I've been playing random debut with every season played according to 1976. Bonds and McGwire are in my league, but I doubt the 76 numbers will allow them to reach their naughty numbers.

[thehef]

In my historical leagues I never get to the steroid era unless it's a test or one of those let-it-run-and-just-see-what-happens leagues, and in those, I don't really care... But if and when my main league ever gets to that era, I will probably retire Clemens early, manually adjust Bonds downward a little each year (and perhaps retire him a little early, too). I'm not as bothered by PED use as some, I just judge the guys who were both users and jerks more-harshly ;-)

I'll probably also slightly tweak McGwire and Sosa down for the small number of years that there numbers were gaudy. I'm not much concerned about them... Someone like Eric Gagne was fun to watch and while his numbers were great for a few years, he won't skew my game for me.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I don't typically play historical games with players from the PED era, but guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa are deleted from the database and not allowed to exist in my saved games.

There were no rules at that time against many PEDs. Which means the use of them was not a violation.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Generally, offense and defense were fairly stable from the mid-1930's until the PED era, with maybe the exception of the late 60's when pitching started to dominate so much. Once baseball hit 1996 and beyond, it was obvious that some players were using PEDs and that game had become a caricature of itself.

You're going to have to cite some scientific evidence in order for me to buy that argument. Steroids and similar PEDs don't grant players sudden superhuman strength, and the player still needs the raw talent to hit a baseball. There were other changes going on at that time: four expansion clubs had been added, diluting to some extent the talent base, and several new parks had been opened, changing the environments in which players played. These influences would have to be taken into account in order to tease out the actual effect of PEDs. (There also may or may not have been changes to the baseballs used at the time.)

It's a common statement that PEDs led to all sorts of statistical aberrations, but I'm not aware of any substantive, scientifically-minded study which has put any numbers to it.

[24Rocks]

The thing I find is that usually there ratings never change before or after mostly, now I haven't had a suspension in v14 yet but if they are good I lower the overall buy 100 divided over all the ratings 50 for lesser players and some I just leave alone. I try and make the suspensions 50 games and one guy Is a Manager in my league former 2 overall pick that used drugs went to Japan came back "drug free" and hit 20 homers twice.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by David Watts

What are todays managers doing that bugs you so much?

I've covered this a number of times on the forums. There are many things, but three examples are over-protecting pitchers based on pitch counts, overspecializing with the bullpen, and creating an automatic setup/closer sequence for virtually any game in which the manager's team has a lead.

Let's start with the last one first: I'd have to track down the link, but someone did a complete statistical analysis of closer usage since the role first began to be used through the present day. The use of closers has had no impact on winning percentages for teams. It didn't have an impact when the role was more rare, and it doesn't have an impact now that every team uses a closer. Teams are no more likely to win a game with a lead when using a designated closer than they are without using one.

The statistical analysis was rather stunning in its revelation, and I suspect that a similar analysis would yield the same results for other specialized roles like LOOGY's, setup men, and all the rest. But managers are so married to automatically going with an arbitrary and planned sequence of relievers that I've seen many of them ignore the obvious condition or effectiveness of the pitcher in the game and go strictly to their master plan. When something so arbitrary and artificial is ruling the game, it's ridiculous.

This flows into one of my other complaints, which is overspecializing with the bullpen. Managers have become so obsessed with matchups that it has become routine for even the best managers in the game to take the ball away from a better pitcher who is not fatigued and turn it over to a much lesser pitcher in order to get a lefty/righty matchup. Trying to manage to matchups is nothing new, but it has reached absurdity in the current game.

It's unbelievable that entire careers are now built on pitching to one or two batters and then otherwise being useless on a roster. And it's unbelievable that the best pitchers in the game aren't staying in the game more often to get critical outs.

And this leads to the issue of pitch counts and overprotecting pitchers. While there is limited evidence to suggest that 120 pitches is a rule of thumb beyond which injuries might technically be more likely, the likelihood is too small to justify the wholesale change in the way that pitchers are handled in today's game. Once again, managers have become so obsessed with a concept that has little to no support for it that they would rather give the ball to a much weaker pitcher and risk losing a game instead of allowing a pitcher to go nine innings or take his pitch count beyond some arbitrary total.

Anyway, this only scratches the surface, and we haven't even covered all of the issues with pitchers, much less batters, fielders, and managerial strategies. The major league game is simply dead to me and has been for about 17 years now.

[JMDurron]

It's stunning to me that people have deluded themselves into thinking that the "PED Era" is over. We've gone from Babe Ruth trying to inject himself with extract from sheep testicles to amphetamines to steroids to HGH to the newer designer drugs from Biogenesis in the news today. There is no such thing as a "PED Era", but you can define something as a "Steroid Era" if you want to, IMO, because the always innovative players are moving on. These are hyper-Alpha male elite athletes who always have, and always will, as a group (some exceptions, but true for the group as a whole), do anything and everything to find an edge, legal or otherwise.

I guess I just can't make myself treat the players differently, from Babe's early attempts at sort-of steroid use to Willie Mays' amphetamines to Roger Clemens' steroids to Ryan Braun's HGH, because it's just different versions of the same story. I can draw a moral line at illegality outside of baseball, but as far as actually eliminating/punishing players...meh. Roger Clemens was striking out Gary Sheffield while Barry Bonds was hitting HRs off of Eric Gagne, it's just what that era was.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by RchW

I have none. The beauty of fictional is the illusion of perfection

This is my stance. Bonds has now played for 5 teams as of 2005. Pit, SFG, MIL, STL & now NYY. He is at 699 HR I plan on retiring him after the 2007 season which was his last IRL whether he gets to 755 or not. Clemens is on Houston at 310 wins 3900 K ( retired for the 2003 & 2004 season and i missed it) Big Mac as I said has 629 HR. Sosa just hit his 600th, maybe only his 500th and is till on the Cubs but injured. A-Rod is also on the Cubs but has not hit more then 35 HR since 2001. In my league it is 2 fictional leagues plus 2005 MLB started in 1999. I read the news daily and any player that gets busted for drugs gets a 50 game suspension. I keep a log of players busted any player gets caught a 2nd time its 100 g, 3rd time 200g, 4th ban. No one has gotten busted twice.
Part of me wants to manually retire them and it would be great if i could take them out of the record books. Bonds hit .401 for Milwaukee in 2004. only had 32 HR and missed 25 Games approx.

[elfsutton]

I let them play and have done with it. Seriously, someone said it in a post, and I have heard the arguements many times and disagree with them all. Because you take the steriods does NOT in any way improve your ability to play this game. It would have to be prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have been a Pirates fan since way way before now. I saw Barry as a rookie and watched him start his career and then watched him turn into the bomber. If the steroids helped him, how could it not have been his training regiment. Lifting, training, all the things he might have done that other than the steroids might have done the same thing.

The one thing people forget though about the PEDs era. People went to watch and only cared after. One of the revolving snippets is a quote by Bonds about how they boo him but when he gets to the plate, the cameras come out all over. It is sad and true.

IMHO, I think the owners knew more than they let on and let it go to help flll the seats. How many more seats did they fill during the McGwire/Sosa hr battles? How many people think it would have been the same if that mini drama was not happening.

I havent really considered it a 'bad' thing. Like someone else said, this is something that has always been part of baseball, there will and always has been someone trying to get by with something, be it vasoline on the ball or hgh in the morning coffee, wont change, its the nature of the game.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

but I'm not aware of any substantive, scientifically-minded study which has put any numbers to it.

Doesn't matter. Bonds is guilty even though he never failed a single drug test. And all of them hit X number of extra home runs because of the PEDs. Never mind that since testing began if I'm not mistaken more pitchers have been caught than batters.

I see this all the time and no longer am even surprised by it. It's "commonly accepted" that Bonds did steroids, and that because of the steroids home runs from the years XXXX to XXXX were inflated, despite no scientific evidence.

Also, last year and this (as the argument continues) the absolute stupidity of setting down one's ace pitcher in the playoffs even though he's not hurt continues the same theme. Yes, I'm talking about the totally and completely UNINJURED Stephen Strasburg. (Who, BTW, is on the DL this very minute despite being set down)

There is not one, NOT ONE, study that shows pithers recovering from a Tommy John surgery (or any other injury for that matter) can only pitch 160 inning the first year back, NOR are there any studies that definitely show that pitching a pitcher past 160 innings his first year back from Tommy John surgery increases his risk of future injury (or reduces his risk for that matter, NO STUDY HAS BEEN DONE).

Yet the Nationals did it, and on many of these internet forums I called it out for being as stupid as it was and for being as unfair as it was, as players play their entire careers for such an opportunity, and the most common come back was, it doesn't matter, the Nats will be in the playoffs next year and for years to come, he'll get a chance.

Really?? I would sooooooo LOVE to hear from those folks now.

I predicted before the season began an 85-77 no playoff season for the Nats, and while I'm admittedly off base so far, I'm not near as off base as those predicting a return to the playoffs for "years to come."

Bottom line, it doesn't matter what real scientific evidence is available or what it shows, at the end of the day most folks are swayed by predisposed biases to support or not support whatever the subject may be.

[The Wolf]

Instant lifetime bans for all PED users.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by elfsutton

I let them play and have done with it. Seriously, someone said it in a post, and I have heard the arguements many times and disagree with them all. Because you take the steriods does NOT in any way improve your ability to play this game. It would have to be prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have been a Pirates fan since way way before now. I saw Barry as a rookie and watched him start his career and then watched him turn into the bomber. If the steroids helped him, how could it not have been his training regiment. Lifting, training, all the things he might have done that other than the steroids might have done the same thing.

The one thing people forget though about the PEDs era. People went to watch and only cared after. One of the revolving snippets is a quote by Bonds about how they boo him but when he gets to the plate, the cameras come out all over. It is sad and true.

IMHO, I think the owners knew more than they let on and let it go to help flll the seats. How many more seats did they fill during the McGwire/Sosa hr battles? How many people think it would have been the same if that mini drama was not happening.

I havent really considered it a 'bad' thing. Like someone else said, this is something that has always been part of baseball, there will and always has been someone trying to get by with something, be it vasoline on the ball or hgh in the morning coffee, wont change, its the nature of the game.

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, just look at the numbers, not to mention testimonial after testimonial from the former big league players who've had the guts to speak out. Look I get that players have tried to cheat since the game's been invented, hell they just found a Mickey Mantle bat that was corked BUT, and this is a big but, no other substance has altered the records/statistics of the game more than steroids has, that's a stone cold fact. Look at the numbers:

The 97 years outside the steroid era
70+ homers: 0
60-69 homers: 2
50-59 homers: 19

The 13 year(1993-2007) steroid era
70+ homers: 2
60-69 homers: 4
50-59 homers: 18 times

So during the 13 year period encompassing the steroid era there were more 50 homer seasons(24) than there were in the other 97 years(21) If you don't think it was steroids I have a bridge to sell ya